MJ. Smith said:

For those looking for Catholic resources, the author is Dominican.

I find this post to be quite curious. How does Spicq's theological bias show up in this work?

Mark Stevens said:

Joshua Garcia said:

MJ. Smith said:

For those looking for Catholic resources, the author is Dominican.

I find this post to be quite curious. How does Spicq's theological bias show up in this work?

How could it not? This is true of all of us I would of thought.

 

A very good resource!

I see lexicons basically as commentaries on words, especially the TLNT. The few screenshots I saw of this resource were quite interesting. However, I wonder if anyone would be able to use this resource without even noticing it has a Catholic flavor. I ask this only because this seems to be a popular resource even among Protestants.

Thanks everyone! Does anyone know how Spicq is pronounced?

Spic is quoted on this article:

Dallas Professor Rebuffs Common Quibble on “Eis”

On the day of Pentecost, at the conclusion of his presentation, the apostle Peter issued the following command.

“Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto [‘for’ KJV] the remission of your sins . . .” (Acts 2:38 ASV).

The Greek preposition eis (for/unto) has long been a point of controversy between those who believe that baptism is essential to salvation, and those who repudiate that idea. It has been common over the years for scholars to allege that eis has acausal force, i.e., its meaning actually conveys this thought: “. . . be baptized because ofthe remission of your sins.” “Forgiveness,” it is claimed, is received at the point of faith — and that alone.

A.T. Robertson, the premier Baptist grammarian, argued this case in his famous work,Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930, III, 35-36). In addition, J.R. Mantey contended for the “causal” sense of eis in Acts 2:38, though he classified that use of the preposition as a “remote meaning.” His discussion clearly indicated, however, that he yielded to that view because of his conviction that, if baptism was “for the purpose of the remission of sins,” then salvation would be of works, and not by faith (a false conclusion) (see: H.E. Dana & J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955, 103-04). Those of the Baptist persuasion constantly appeal to Robertson and Mantey as authorities on this matter.

It has been a matter of long-standing knowledge, however, that the standard Greek lexicons do not define eis as “because of” with reference to Acts 2:38. J.H. Thayer, for instance, translated the term as follows, citing Acts 2:38 — “eis aphesin hamartion, to obtain the forgiveness of sins” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, 94). Wm. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, in a section where eis is defined as expressing “purpose,” with the sense of “in order to,” rendered the same phrase: “for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven . . . Acts 2:38:” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1967, 228).

Elliger states that eis, in Acts 2:38, is designed “to indicate purpose” (Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1, 399). In his discussion of Acts 2:38, Ceslas Spicq noted: “Water baptism is a means of realizing this conversion, and its goal — something altogether new — is a washing, ‘the remission of sins’” (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament,Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, 242). It is hardly necessary to pile up additional testimony.

That brings me to this point. In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing!

Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that “eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 ¹⁹⁵² 129-30; 71 ¹⁹⁵³ 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370).

It is not that Prof. Wallace has come to the conviction that baptism is essential for salvation. No, he resorts to other manipulations to resist that conclusion.

He has, however, rebuffed a long-defended argument that eis means “because of.” We are happy for that progress, and we, with genuine sincerity, pray that many of our Protestant, “faith-only” friends will make even further advancements toward the truth of the first-century gospel.

I'm glad several scholars I own in Logos (including Ceslas Spic) support the obvious.  Buy the Theological Lexicon of the NT.

DAL

MJ. Smith said:

Joshua Garcia said:

How does Spicq's theological bias show up in this work?

Who said Catholic was a bias?

Heh, that's like an English person telling an American "you have an accent" and an American saying, "no, it's you who have the accent."

Seriously, though, when it comes to his lexical work, his bias is probably towards the accuracy of the words rather than anything the Catholic Church tells him he must defend doctrinally. Protestants have relied on and trusted this lexicon for years. Since it is a lexicon of the New Testament, it is going to be about Biblical words and meanings, which Protestants and Catholics share a high view of. No extra-biblical traditions to worry about here. It's published by Hendrickson, which is an evangelical academic publishing house.

The only thing you'll notice, which hopefully won't detract from the lexicon's usefulness and trustworthiness to you, is its mention of usages of these words in apocryphal books such as Judith and Tobit. But actually any good lexical scholar will look to see how the words are used in other works written during biblical authors' times, whether they are considered to be canonical or not, because they will help us to understand the semantic range in common use at the time.

Here is another comparison of BDAG vs. Spicq for your perusal (BDAG references Spicq). Since Spicq predates BDAG 2000 by more than 20 years, BDAG may have some more up-to-date lexical information for some entries.

ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ (ὑφίστημι; Hippocr.+; Polyb. 4, 50, 10; 6, 55, 2; Diod S 16, 32, 3; 16, 33, 1; M. Ant. 10, 5; ins, pap, LXX; PsSol 15:5; 17:24; TestReub 2:7; TestZeb 2:4; Tat.; Ath. 21, 3; Iren. 5, 36, 1 [Harv. II 426, 1]; Hippol., Ref. 10, 17, 2; Did., Gen. 128, 11 in widely different meanings. See Dörrie 4 below.)
① the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality (underlying structure, oft. in contrast to what merely seems to be: Ps.-Aristot., De Mundo 4 p. 395a, 29f; Plut., Mor. 894b; Diog. L., Pyrrh. 9, 91; Artem. 3, 14; Ps 38:6; Wsd 16:21; TestReub 2:7; SJCh 78, 30; Philo, Aet. M. 88; 92; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1; Tat. 6, 2; Ath. 21, 3; cp. the answer of a certain Secundus, who, when asked ‘Quid fides?’, answered: ‘ignotae rei mira certitudo’=a marvelous certainty about someth. otherwise unknown [FPhGr I 516]; s. also Lexicon Sabbaiticum: Lexica Graeca Minora ’65, 53)
ⓐ of the Son of God as χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ a(n) exact representation of (God’s) real being (i.e. as one who is in charge of the universe) Hb 1:3. Sim. of polytheists’ deities, whose basic reality is someth. material like stone, metal etc. Dg 2:1.
ⓑ of things: among the meanings that can be authenticated for Hb 11:1 a strong claim can be made for realization (Diod S 1, 3, 2 of the realization of a plan; Cornutus 9 p. 9, 3 of the realization of humanity; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 1 that of the Jewish people, both by a divine act; Tat. 5, 1 of God τοῦ παντὸς ἡ ὑπόστασις): ἔστιν πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπ.=in faith things hoped for become realized, or things hoped for take on (but s. 3 and 4 below) reality. Conversely, ‘without faith things hoped for would have no reality’. HKöster (s. bibliog. 4 below) argues for this sense also in 3:14, but s. 2. Cp. the rendering ‘substance’ (e.g. KJV, REB).
② a plan that one devises for action, plan, project, undertaking, endeavor (Diod. Sic 15, 70, 2; 16, 32, 3; 16, 82, 6; 17, 69, 7; Ezk 19:5) ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ in connection with this undertaking i.e. the collection for Jerusalem 2 Cor 9:4. The fact that meeting a financial obligation is the main theme (vss. 1–2) might well suggest association of ὑπ. with its use e.g. as a t.t. of expectation of rent due PTebt 61b, 194. To emphasize the importance of steadfast commitment to professed obligation (opp. καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι), the author of Hb 3:14 uses ὑπ. in a way that invites an addressee to draw on the semantic component of obligation familiar in commercial usage of the term (s. PTebt above), an association that is invited by use of μέτοχος, a standard term for a business partner (PHib 109, 3; PCairZen 176, 102 [both III B.C.]), μέχρι τέλους (s.v. τέλος 2bβ), and βέβαιος (s. M-M s.v.). S. Köster 1b above for focus of ὑπ. on ‘reality’.—Satirically, ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ὑποστάσει τῆς καυχήσεως in this boasting project of mine 2 Cor 11:17.
③ The interp. situation, condition (Cicero, Ad Attic. 2, 3, 3 ὑπόστασιν nostram=our situation), also specif. frame of mind (Dio Cass. 49, 9; Themist., Or. 13 p. 178b; Jos., Ant. 18, 24 of determination in desperate circumstances; sim. Polyb. 6, 55, 2) has been suggested for some of the passages cited in 1 and 2 above: 2 Cor 9:4 (explained in a v.l. via the epexegetical gen. καυχήσεως); 11:17; Hb 3:14 (s. Dörrie [bibliog. 4 below], p. 39: the frame of mind described in Hb 3:6). The sense ‘confidence’, ‘assurance’ (based on LXX [Ruth 1:12; Ps 38:8; Ezk 19:5], where it renders תִּקְוָה etc.) favored by Melanchthon and Luther (also Tyndale, NRSV, but not KJV) for Hb 11:1 has enjoyed much favor but must be eliminated, since examples of it cannot be found (s. Dörrie and Köster [4 below]). More prob. for Hb 4:11 is
④ guarantee of ownership/entitlement, title deed (Sb 9086 III, 1–11 [104 A.D.]; Spicq III 423 n. 14; cp. M-M s.v.) Hb 11:1 (cp. 2 above for commercial use of ὕπ.).—ASchlatter, Der Glaube im NT4 1927, 614ff; MMathis, The Pauline πίστισ-ὑπόστασις acc. to Hb 11:1, diss. Cath. Univ. of Amer., Washington, D.C. 1920, also Biblica 3, 1922, 79–87; RWitt, Hypostasis: ‘Amicitiae Corolla’ (RHarris Festschr.) ’33, 319–43; MSchumpp, D. Glaubensbegriff des Hb: Divus Thomas 11, ’34, 397–410; FErdin, D. Wort Hypostasis, diss. Freiburg ’39; CArpe, Philologus 94, ’41, 65–78; HDörrie, Ὑπόστασις, Wort-u. Bedeutungsgeschichte: NAWG 1955, no. 3, ZNW 46, ’55, 196–202; HKöster, TW VIII 571–88 (Köster prefers plan, project [Vorhaben] for the passages in 2 Cor, and reality [Wirklichkeit] for all 3 occurrences in Hb, contrasting the reality of God with the transitory character of the visible world). S. also the lit. s.v. πίστις 2a.—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq. Sv.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (1040–1041). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

- - -

ὑπόστασις
hypostasis, substance, firmness, confidence, collection of documents establishing ownership, guarantee, proof
→see also πίστις

hypostasis, S 5287; TDNT 8.572–589; EDNT 3.406–407; NIDNTT 1.710–714; MM 659–660; L&N 31.84, 58.1; BAGD 847

The usual Latin equivalent of hypo-stasis is sub-stantia, which in philosophical terms means the essence of an entity, that which is hidden beneath the appearances.1 This meaning, however, is not attested in the NT, apart from Heb 1:3, where the Son is the imprint or effigy of the substance of the Father.2
In an ethical sense, hypostasis refers to what is deep in the heart—firmness, calm, confidence, courage;3 hence the meaning “hope” or psychological and moral support in Ruth 1:12; Ezek 19:5;4 Ps 39:7 (Hebrew tôḥeleṯ) and “assurance”—probably the meaning in 2 Cor 9:4; 11:17,5 and certainly in Heb 3:14—“if we hold our initial confidence (literally, the beginning of assurance) till the end.”6 It is more difficult to translate Heb 11:1, estin de pistis elpizomenōn hypostasis,7 where the Vulgate simply transcribes the word in question (“Fides est substantia sperandarum rerum”) and most moderns translate it “assurance or solid confidence.” But in the papyri our noun is usually used for property, for a right of possession: “without risk for myself and my property” (P.Oxy. 138, 26; 1981, 27; 2478, 28; P.Berl.Zill. 6, 4; SB 8986, 22; 9463, 6; 9566, 10); “the scribe attributed more land to me than I actually own” (P.Oxy. 488, 17; cf. P.Wisc. 61, 15); in an account from the fourth century, “produce from a property of twenty-four arourai.”8 Hypostasis is also used for the contents of a house.9 The commentaries of the church fathers and the medievals followed this line of interpretation: faith contains the substance of eternal life, which is the prima inchoatio (first beginning) of the object of hope. It already possesses that hope, perhaps only faintly, but nevertheless in its true essence.10
This nuance of anticipation can be narrowed down further. Hypostasis means point of departure, beginning (Diodorus Siculus 1.66), provision for the future (P.Panop.Beatty 1, 269; P.Tebt. 336; 7; P.Stras. 309, verso 2; P.Fay. 343; SB 7360, 12), offer (P.Panop.Beatty 2, 144, 158), commitment or guarantee.11 According to the edict of Mettius Rufus, all owners of building and land have to have deeds on record establishing their property rights.12 Thus a hypostasis is a collection of documents establishing ownership, deposited in the archives13 and proving the owner’s rights; hence it is a guarantee for the future. Moulton-Milligan are right to translate Heb 11:1 “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”14 This was also the interpretation of the Peshitta: pyso, “guarantee, proof.”15 Faith is a title of ownership on property that is in the future.

Spicq, C., & Ernest, J. D. (1994). Vol. 3: Theological lexicon of the New Testament (421–423). Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson.

- - -

It seems to me that Spicq says things in ways that could be nicely used in sermons (with proper credit given to him, when necessary) because he flavors his entries with the theological implications, hence the title of his work. Here's another example/comparison.

ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ (this term has left little trace in polytheistic Gk. lit. A sepulchral ins, prob. honoring a polytheistic army officer, who is held in ‘high esteem’ by his country [SEG VIII, 11, 6 (III A.D.)] sheds light on an ex. such as Philod., παρρ. col. 13a, 3 Oliv., but s. Söding [below] 294. The restorations in POxy 1380, 28 and 109f [II A.D.] are in dispute: s. New Docs 4, 259 [lit.]; Söding [end] 294f, n. 68 [lit.]. For other exx. from the Gr-Rom. world s. Ltzm., exc. after 1 Cor 13; L-S-J-M; ACeresa-Gastaldo, Αγάπη nei documenti anteriori al NT: Aegyptus 31, ’51, 269–306, has a new pap and a new ins ex. fr. III A.D. secular sources; in RivFil 31, ’53, 347–56 the same author shows it restored in an ins of 27 B.C., but against C-G. s. lit. Söding 293, n. 57. In Jewish sources: LXX, esp. SSol, also pseudepigr., Philo, Deus Imm. 69; Just., D. 93, 4. Cp. ACarr, ET 10, 1899, 321–30. Its paucity in gener. Gk. lit. may be due to a presumed colloq. flavor of the noun (but s. IPontEux I, 359, 6 as parallel to 2 Cor 8:8 below). No such stigma attached to the use of the verb ἀγαπαω (q.v.).
① the quality of warm regard for and interest in another, esteem, affection, regard, love (without limitation to very intimate relationships, and very seldom in general Greek of sexual attraction).
ⓐ of human love
α. without indication of the pers. who is the object of interest (cp. Eccl 9:1, 6; Sir 48:11 v.l.): ἀ. as subj. ἡ ἀ. οἰκοδομεῖ 1 Cor 8:1.—13:4, 8 (on 1 Cor 13 see the comm. [Maxim Tyr. 20:2 praise of ἔρως what it is not and what it is; s. AHarnack, SBBerlAk 1911, 132–63, esp. 152f; ELehmann and AFridrichsen, 1 Cor 13 e. christl.-stoische Diatribe: StKr Sonderheft 1922, 55–95]; EHoffmann, Pauli Hymnus auf d. Liebe: Dtsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwiss. u. Geistesgesch. 4, 1926, 58–73; NLund, JBL 50, ’31, 266–76; GRudberg, Hellas och Nya Testamentet ’34, 149f; HRiesenfeld, ConNeot 5, ’41, 1–32, Nuntius 6, ’52, 47f); Phil 1:9. ἡ ἀ. κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται Ro 13:10; πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀ. ibid.; ψυγήσεται ἡ ἀ. τ. πολλῶν Mt 24:12; ἡ ἀ. ἀνυπόκριτος let love be genuine Ro 12:9, cp. 2 Cor 6:6. As predicate 1 Ti 1:5; 1J 4:16b (cp. bα). As obj. ἀγάπην ἔχειν (Did., Gen. 221, 30) 1 Cor 13:1–3; Phil 2:2 φιλίαν ἢ ἀγάπην ἔχοντες Just., D. 93, 4; διώκειν 1 Cor 14:1; 1 Ti 6:11; 2 Ti 2:22; ἐνδύσασθαι τὴν ἀ. Col 3:14. ἀφιέναι Rv 2:4.—2 Pt 1:7; Col 1:8. ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀ. 3J 6. Attributively in gen. case ὁ κόπος τῆς ἀ. 1 Th 1:3; τὸ τ. ὑμετέρας ἀ. γνήσιον the genuineness of your love 2 Cor 8:8. ἔνδειξις τῆς ἀ. vs. 24; cp. πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀ. Tit 2:10 v.l.—Hb 10:24; Phil 2:1; 1 Pt 5:14; 1 Cl 49:2.—In prep. phrases ἐξ ἀγάπης out of love Phil 1:16; παράκλησις ἐπὶ τῇ ἀ. σου comfort from your love Phlm 7; περιπατεῖν κατὰ ἀ., ἐν ἀ. Ro 14:15; Eph 5:2; ἐν ἀ. ἔρχεσθαι (opp. ἐν ῥάβδῳ) 1 Cor 4:21; ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀ. Eph 4:15. Other verbal combinations w. ἐν ἀ., 1 Cor 16:14; Eph 3:17; 4:2; Col 2:2; 1 Th 5:13; cp. Eph 4:16 (on Eph 1:4 s. bα). ἐν τῇ ἀ. 1J 4:16b, 18. διὰ τῆς ἀ. δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις Gal 5:13. πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη 5:6. διὰ τὴν ἀ. παρακαλῶ for love’s sake I appeal Phlm 9. μετὰ ἀγάπης πολιτεύεσθαι live in love 1 Cl 51:2.—W. ἀλήθεια 2J 3; πίστις 1 Th 3:6; 5:8; 1 Ti 1:14; 2 Ti 1:13; Phlm 5; B 11:8; IEph 1:1; 9:1; 14:1 al. W. πίστις and other concepts on the same plane Eph 6:23; 1 Ti 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Ti 2:22; 3:10; Tit 2:2; Rv 2:19; Hm 8:9; cp. v 3, 8, 2–5. The triad πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη 1 Cor 13:13; s. also Col 1:4f; 1 Th 1:3; 5:8; B 1:4 (cp. Porphyr., Ad Marcellam 24 τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα μάλιστα κεκρατύνθω περὶ θεοῦ· πίστις, ἀλήθεια, ἔρως, ἐλπίς and s. Rtzst., Hist. Mon. 1916, 242ff, NGG 1916, 367ff; 1917, 130ff, Hist. Zeitschr. 116, 1916, 189ff; AHarnack, PJ 164, 1916, 5ff=Aus d. Friedens-u. Kriegsarbeit 1916, 1ff; PCorssen, Sokrates 7, 1919, 18ff; ABrieger, D. urchr. Trias Gl., Lbe, Hoff., diss. Heidelb. 1925; WTheiler, D. Vorbereitung d. Neuplatonismus 1930, 148f). W. δύναμις and σωφρονισμός 2 Ti 1:7. Cp. B 1:6.—Attributes of love: ἀνυπόκριτος Ro 12:9; 2 Cor 6:6. γνησία 1 Cl 62:2. φιλόθεος and φιλάνθρωπος Agr 7. σύμφωνος IEph 4:1 ἄοκνος IPol 7:2. ἐκτενής 1 Pt 4:8. It is a  fruit of the Spirit καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος Gal 5:22, and takes first rank among the fruits. ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματος Ro 15:30; cp. Col 1:8. Since the term denotes concern for another, the sense alms, charity ISm 6:2 is readily apparent (cp. ἀ. λαμβάνειν ‘receive alms’ PGen 14, 7).—ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἀγάπη τῶν ἀδελφῶν the members greet you with love IPhld 11:2; ISm 12:1, cp. ITr 13:1; IRo 9:3. In these passages the object of the love is often made plain by the context; in others it is
β. expressly mentioned
א .impers. ἀ. τῆς ἀληθείας 2 Th 2:10; ἀ. τῆς πατρίδος love for the homeland 1 Cl 55:5.
ב .human beings ἀ. εἴς τινα love for someone εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους Eph 1:15; Col 1:4. εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας 1 Th 3:12; 2 Th 1:3; cp. 2 Cor 2:4, 8; 1 Pt 4:8; 2J 6. ἐν ἀλλήλοις J 13:35. ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν 2 Cor 8:7; ἡ ἀ. μου μετὰ ὑμῶν 1 Cor 16:24.
ג .God or Christ (πρὸς τὸν θεόν Orig., C. Cels. 3, 15, 12) ἀ. τοῦ θεοῦ love toward God (but in many cases the gen. may be subjective) Lk 11:42; J 5:42; 2 Th 3:5; 1J 2:5, 15; 3:17; 4:12; 5:3; 2 Cor 7:1 P 46 (for φόβος); ἀ. εἰς θεὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν πλησίον Pol 3:3; ἀ. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα θεοῦ Hb 6:10.
ⓑ of the love of God and Christ
α. to humans. Of God (cp. Wsd 3:9): 1J 4:10; ἐν ἡμῖν 1J 4:9, 16. εἰς ἡμᾶς Ro 5:8, cp. vs. 5. τετελείωται ἡ ἀ. μεθʼ ἡμῶν 1J 4:17 (s. HPreisker app. to HWindisch Comm. 167); ἀπὸ τῆς ἀ. τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ Ro 8:39. ἀγάπην διδόναι bestow love 1J 3:1; ἐν ἀ. προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν Eph 1:4f: the rhythm of the passage suggests the believers as agents for ἀ. in vs. 4 (cp. vs. 15), but 2:4 favors God; s. the comm.—2 Cor 13:13; Jd 2 and 21. God is the source of love 1J 4:7, the θεὸς τῆς ἀ. 2 Cor 13:11, and therefore God is love 1J 4:8, 16. Christians, embraced by God’s love, are τέκνα ἀγάπης B 9:7; 21:9.—Of Jesus’ love J 15:9, 10a, 13 (s. MDibelius, Joh 15:13: Deissmann Festschr. 1927, 168–86); 1J 3:16.—Ro 8:35; 2 Cor 5:14; cp. Eph 3:19. Perh. the ἀληθὴς ἀγάπη of Pol 1:1 is a designation of Jesus or his exemplary concern for others.
β. of the relation betw. God and Christ J 15:10b; 17:26 (on the constr. cp. Pel.-Leg. 12, 21 ὁ πλοῦτος ὅν με ἐπλούτισεν ὁ σατανᾶς). τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀ. αὐτοῦ of the son of (God’s) love, i.e. of (God’s) beloved son Col 1:13 (s. PsSol 13:9 υἱὸς ἀγαπήσεως).—WLütgert, D. L. im NT 1905; BWarfield, PTR 16, 1918, 1–45; 153–203; JMoffatt, Love in the NT 1929; HPreisker, StKr 95, 1924, 272–94, D. urchr. Botschaft v. der L. Gottes 1930; RSchütz, D. Vorgeschichte der joh. Formel ὁ θεὸς ἀγ. ἐστίν diss. Kiel 1917; CBowen, Love in the Fourth Gosp.: JR 13, ’33, 39–49; GEichholz, Glaube u. L. im 1 J: EvTh ’37, 411–37. On ἔρως and ἀ. s. Harnack, SBBerlAk 1918, 81–94; ANygren, Eros u. Agape I 1930, II ’37 (Eng. tr. Agape and Eros, AHebert and PWatson ’32, ’39; on this JRobinson, Theology 48, ’45, 98–104); LGrünhut, Eros u. Ag. ’31. Cp. CTarelli, Ἀγάπη: JTS n.s. 1, ’50, 64–67; ELee, Love and Righteousness: ET 62, ’50/51, 28–31; AŠuštar, Verbum Domini 28, ’50, 110–19; 122–40; 193–213; 257–70; 321–40; TOhm, D. Liebe zu Gott in d. nichtchristl. Religionen, ’50; WHarrelson, The Idea of Agape: JR 31, ’51, 169–82; VWarnach, Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der ntl. Theol. 1951; JSteinmueller, Ἐρᾶν, Φιλεῖν, Ἀγαπᾶν in Extrabiblical and Bibl. Sources: Studia Anselmiana 27f, ’51, 404–23.—Full bibliog. in HRiesenfeld, Étude bibliographique sur la notion biblique d’ ἀγάπη, surtout dans 1 Cor 13: ConNeot 5, ’41, 1–32; s. also EDNT.
② a common meal eaten by early Christians in connection with their worship, for the purpose of fostering and expressing mutual affection and concern,  fellowship meal, a love-feast (the details are not discussed in the NT, although Paul implicitly refers to it 1 Cor 11:17ff; cp. D 9–10; s. also Pliny Ep. 10, 96, 7; AcPlTh 25 [Aa I 252]; Clem. Al., Paed. 2, 1, 4, Strom. 3, 2, 10; Pass. Perp. et Felic. 17, 1; Tertull., Apolog. 39, De Jejun. 17; Minucius Felix 31) Jd 12 (v.l. ἀπάταις; in 2 Pt 2:13 ἀγάπαις is v.l. for ἀπάταις; the same v.l. Eccl 9:6, where ἀπάτη in ms. S is meaningless: s. RSchütz, ZNW 18, 1918, 224; s. ἀγαπάω 3 on J 13:1, 34). ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος IRo 7:3. ἀγάπην ποιεῖν hold a love-feast ISm 8:2, in both pass. w. prob. ref. to the eucharist (s. ἀγαπάω 2 and 3).—Meals accompanied by religious rites and in a religious context were conducted by various social groups among the Greeks from early times (s. Bauer’s Introduction, pp. xxvii–viii, above). A scholion on Pla. 122b says of such meals among the Lacedaemonians that they were called φιλίτια, because they φιλίας συναγωγά ἐστιν. Is ἀγ. perhaps a translation of φιλία into Christian terminology?—JKeating, The Ag. and the Eucharist in the Early Church 1901; HLeclercq, Dict. d’Arch. I 1903, 775–848; FFunk, Kirchengesch. Abhdlgen. 3, 1907, 1–41; EBaumgartner, Eucharistie u. Ag. im Urchr. 1909; RCole, Love Feasts, a History of the Christian Ag. 1916; GWetter, Altchr. Liturgien II 1921; HLietzmann, Messe u. Herrenmahl 1926 (on this ALoisy, Congr. d’Hist. du Christ. I 1928, 77–95); KVölker, Mysterium u. Ag. 1927; DTambolleo, Le Agapi ’31; BReicke, Diakonie, Festfreude u. Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier, ’51.—TSöding, Das Wortfeld der Liebe im paganen und biblischen Griechisch: ETL 68, ’92, 284–330.—DELG s.v. ἀγαπάω. M-M. TW. Spicq. TRE s.v. Liebe.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (6–7). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

- - -

ἀγάπη
agapē, love

agapē, S 26; TDNT 1.21–55; EDNT 1.8–12; NIDNTT 2.538–551; MM 2; L&N 23.28, 25.43; BDF §163; BAGD 5–6; ND 4.258–259

The etymology of agapaō is obscure. E. Boisacq and E. Stauffer offer no verdict,1 Blass and Debrunner say not a word,2 E. Risch and H. J. Mette admit their ignorance, as does P. Chantraine.3 A. Ceresa-Gastaldo suggests a link to the Sanskrit pā with the sense of shelter or protect, and an analogy with the Greek posis.4 A. Carnoy posits the primitive meaning “greet in a friendly manner” and goes back to the Indo-European ghabh, in Sanskrit gabhasti, “hand,” with reference to the Homeric Greeks, who took each other’s hand as a sign of friendship.5 I myself would be tempted to trace this verb to the root aga, “very”; we know that the Greek agē means “admiration, astonishment.”6 Hence, no doubt, the first usages of this term in the sense of welcome: the surprise of the host who receives a stranger. At any rate, the only adequate translation is “love in the sense of charity”; in Latin, caritas or dilectio.7
The Greeks had four terms for expressing the major senses of love.8 First, storgē (stergō) refers either to the tender feelings that parents naturally feel toward their children9 or children toward their siblings and parents, or to the bond that unites husband and wife,10 and also takes in sympathy for friends and compatriots.11 Erōs (eraō), no doubt derived from an ancient neuter *eras,12 is not found in the New Testament; it expresses above all unreasoning passion and desire (an alogos orexis), the desire of the wolf for the sheep.13 Although it is often used with no negative connotation, this word for a type of covetousness can hardly express a love that is specifically divine, if only because it does not inspire respect.14
Friendship or amity (philia, phileō) moves on an entirely different plane,15 even though it often refers to affection pure and simple, attachment, sympathy, always marked by a kindly attitude, and good will. But the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, turned it into a very elaborate concept. Strictly speaking, friendship wants reciprocity, does not take root except within a defined group of persons—thus we refer to “a pair of friends”—and above all between persons of the same standing: amicitia pares aut invenit aut facit.16 If, then, in certain usages phileō is very close to agapaō,17 the former verb was hardly appropriate for expressing a love that unites God and humans and extends even to enemies,18 especially since the noun agapē did not enter literary usage, except in the LXX, before the first century.
So what does agapē mean in the NT?19 It is the most rational kind of love, inasmuch as it involves recognition and judgment of value, whence its frequent nuance of “preference.”20 The verb agapaō most often means “value, set great store by, hold in high esteem”;21 it is a love with deep respect (1 Pet 2:17), which often goes along with admiration and can become adoration.22 This esteem and goodwill tend to be expressed in appropriate words and deeds.23 Unlike other loves, which can remain hidden in the heart, it is essential to charity to manifest itself, to demonstrate itself, to provide proofs, to put itself on display;24 so much so that in the NT it would almost always be necessary to translate agapē as “demonstration of love.”25 This affection—unlike erōs, which in the literature brings endless suffering and disaster26—is accompanied by contentment, since the ordinary meaning of agapaō is to be happy, satisfied.27 But in Christian usage, since it is a divine love, coming from heaven (Rom 5:5), it will be joyful and already a foretaste of blessedness.28
Finally, and perhaps above all, while friendship is properly used only of a relationship between equals, agapē links persons of different conditions: with rulers, benefactors, and fathers; it is a disinterested and generous love, full of thoughtfulness and concern. It is in this sense that God is agapē and loves the world.29 With those who are indebted, for inferiors, for subjects, this agapē, which is first of all consent, welcome, acceptance,30 is expressed in gratitude:31 it is the love inspired in turn by generous love—which is the meaning in 1 John 4:10—and it is translated into acclaim, applause, tokens of respect, congratulations, praises,32 and even veneration,33 so that Christian agapē is expressed in liturgy and worship: “To the one who loves us … to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever” (Tō agapōnti hēmas … autō hē doxa kai to kratos eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn, Rev 1:5–6).
The verb agapaō makes its first appearance in Homer, and agapēsis is used in the classical period, but the noun agapē is unknown before its usage in the LXX. When it is attested before the Christian era,34 it is almost exclusively in Hellenic Judaism, and in each case it has a religious meaning.35 One is inclined to think that it is not a biblical neologism but was borrowed by the inspired writers from the popular language of Egypt. In any case, contrary to what is often written, no certain attestation is available in any papyrus from the pre-Christian era.
P.Berlin 9869, an unintelligible fragment,36 has often been cited: en tois malista agapēs. But not only do the editors point the final sigma as doubtful, but they also put a question mark both after their restoration37 and after the word agapē in the index. Actually, the papyrus is mutilated; several letters have to be restored, and one could just as easily read the noun agapēseōs, the participle agapēsas, or the future agapēseis.38 These verbal forms seem all the more likely since this is a philosophical dialogue, and Aristotle frequently uses mallon or malista agapaō.39 Moreover, the date of this papyrus is unknown, and no positive data concerning its date are given.40
To this text, which is doubtful, to say the least, E. Stauffer41 adds P.Paris 49, 3, dated by its editor W. Brunet de Presle to 164–58 BC.42 But this citation should be challenged, because after F. Blass aired his doubts on this reading,43 A. Deissmann consulted M. Pierret, conservator of Egyptian antiquities at the Louvre. The latter, after examining the papyrus, concluded, “One finds in papyrus no. 49 not a trace of the word agapē, but only on line 6 something that looks like it reads tarachēn.”44 On the authority of U. Wilcken, I shall adopt this reading: dia te t[on] Sarapin kai tēn sēn eleuthe[ria]n kai pepeiramai.45
The other texts brought forward are either suspect or of unverifiable date, and E. Peterson has shown that none of then are admissible.46 An inscription from Tefeny in Pisidia, from the time of the empire, though the date can be narrowed down no further, reads: penpsei d’ eis aga[pē]n se philommeidēs Apphodeitē,47 but A. Deissmann has proved that the word must be restored ag[atho]n, not agapēn.48 In Lib. 13a.3, Philodemus of Gadara (first century BC) wrote philēsei kai di’ a[g]apēs;49 but W. Crönert, who had not cited the text without caution in his new edition of F. Passow’s Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache (2 d ed., 1912), finally rejects it50 in adopting the reading di’ agapēseōs.51
P.Oxy. XI, 1380, from the beginning of the second century AD, preserves a list of cultic names attributed in different places to the goddess Isis Polyōnymos. In the Egyptian villae of Thonis, she was invoked: ἐn Thōni agap[ēn …]ō.52 E. Peterson finds the conjecture unconvincing and reads agap]ētēn. At line 109, the first editors, Grenfell-Hunt (1915) read Α[…]ΤΗΝ ΑΘ-ΟΛΟΝ = en Italia agapēn theōn.53 But G. de Manteuffel, in making a more attentive collation of this papyrus, which is conserved at the Bodleian, observed: “The epithet agapē theōn is very curious. The word theōn does not exist in the manuscript. τ instead of θ is a frequent enough mistake in the papyri. The greatest difficulty is in the division of the word atholos, but perhaps it can be explained in terms of the continuous script.”54 So the proper restoration is: en Italia a[ga]thēn atholon.55
We must therefore conclude that the term agapē, derived from agapaō (and not from agapēsis) is proper to the Koine. If the LXX gave the word its theological density, it also existed in the pagan language, but it is not attested before the first century AD.56 It is nevertheless worth noting the names formed on this root, such as in the second century BC Agapēnōr, a name similar to that of the founder of the city of Paphos,57 Agapōmenos at Lindos,58 Agapis son of Annianos Neuthēnos, near the city of Carthage,59 and Agapios.60 Among women, we note Agapēma61 and of course Agapē, which is common but which seems to have been used especially among the higher social classes, as in the second century AD in Phrygia: hē kratistē Domna Agapē.62
It is important to bring up to date H. Riesenfeld’s excellent bibliography on agapē63 and to complete the one that I myself began almost twenty years ago:64
A. H. Armstrong, “Platonic ‘Eros’ and Christian Agape,” in The Downside Review, 1961, pp. 105–121; T. Barrosse, “The Relationship of Love to Faith in St. John,” in TS, 1957, pp. 538–559; idem, “Christianity: Mystery of Love,” in CBQ, 1958, pp. 137–172; idem, Christianity: Mystery of Love, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1964; D. Barsotti, La Révélation de l’amour, Paris, 1957; J. B. Bauer, “ ‘… ΤΟΙΣ ΑΓΑΠΩΣΙΝ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟΝ,’ Röm. VIII, 28 (I Cor. II, 9; I Cor. VIII, 3),” in ZNW, 1959, pp. 106–112; K. Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu, Neukirchen, 1972, pp. 56–257; M. Black, “The Interpretation of Romans VIII, 28,” in Freundesgabe O. Cullmann, Leiden, 1962, pp. 166–172; G. Bornkamm, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 3, Munich, 1968, pp. 37–45; J. W. Bowman, “The Three Imperishables,” in Int, 1959, pp. 433–443; P. I. Bratsiôtis, “Τὸ νόημα τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀγάπης,” in Epistemonikè Epeteris t. Theol. Scholès, Athens, 1955, pp. 1–3; C. Burchard, “Das doppelte Leibesgebot in der frühen Überlieferung,” in Festschrift J. Jeremias, Göttingen, 1970, pp. 39–62; J. Chmiel, Lumière et charité d’après la première Epître de saint Jean, Rome, 1971; S. Cipriani, “Dio è amore. La dottrina della carità in san Giovanni,” in La Scuola cattolica, 1966, pp. 214–231; A. Colunga, “El amor y la misericordia hacia el prójimo,” in Teologia Espiritual, 1959, pp. 445–462; J. Coppens, “La Doctrine biblique sur l’amour de Dieu et du prochain,” in ETL, 1964, pp. 252–299; idem, “Agapè et Agapan dans les lettres johanniques,” ETL, 1969, pp. 125–127; K.R.J. Cripps, “ ‘Love Your Neighbor as Yourself’ (Mt. XXII, 39),” in ExpT, vol. 76, 1964, p. 26; J. Deák, Die Gottesliebe in den alten semitischen Religionen, Eperjes, 1914; A. Dihle, Die goldene Regal, Göttingen, 1962; J. Egermann, La charité dans la Bible, Mulhouse, 1963 (popularization); F. Dreyfus, “ ‘Maintenant, la foi, l’espérance et la charité demeurent toutes les trois’ (I Cor. XIII, 13),” in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus, Rome, 1963, pp. 403–412; E. Evans, “The Verb ΑΓΑΠΑΝ in the Fourth Gospel,” in F. L. Cross, Studies in the Fourth Gospel, London, 1957, pp. 64–71; A. Feuillet, Le Mystère de l’amour divin dans la théologie johannique, Paris, 1972; E. Fischer, Amor und Eros. Eine Untersuchung des Wortfeldes “Liebe” im Lateinischen und Griechischen, Hildesheim, 1973; A. Fitzgerald, “Hebrew yd = ‘Love’ and ‘Beloved,’ ” in CBQ, 1967, pp. 368–374; P. Foresi, L’agape in S. Paolo e la carità in S. Tommaso d’Aquino, Rome, 1965; G. Friedrich, Was heißt das: Liebe?, Stuttgart, 1972; R. H. Fuller, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,” in G. Strecker, Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie (Festschrift H. Conzelmann), Tübingen, 1975, pp. 317–329; V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament, London, 1973; B. Gerhardsson, “I. Cor. 13. Om Paulus och hans rabbinska bakgrund,” in SEÅ, vol. 39, 1974, pp. 121–144; G. Gilleman, “Charité théologale et vie morale,” in Lumen Vitae, vol. 16, 1961, pp. 9–27; W. Grundmann, “Das Doppelgebot der Liebe,” in Die Zeichen der Zeit, vol. 11, 1957, pp. 449–455; A. Guillaumont, “Le Nom des agapètes,” in VC, 1969, pp. 30–37; A. J. Hultgren, “The Double Commandment of Love in Mt. XXII, 34–40: The Sources of Compositions,” in CBQ, 1974, pp. 373–378; J.-P. Hyatt, “The God of Love in the O.T.,” in To Do and To Teach: Essays in Honor of C. L. Pyatt, Lexington, 1953, pp. 15–26; J. Jeffrey, “The Love of God in Christ—Romans VIII, 38–39,” in ExpT, vol. 69, 1958, pp. 359–361; R. Joly, Le vocabulaire chrétien de l’amour est-il original? Φιλεῖν et Ἀγαπᾶν, Brussels, 1968; J. Kahmann, Die Offenbarung der Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament, Witten, 1959; R. E. Ker, “Fear or Love?,” in ExpT, vol. 72, 1961, pp. 195–196; R. Kieffer, Le primat de l’amour: Commentaire épistémologique de I Corinthiens 13, Paris, 1975; W. Klassen, “Love Your Enemy: A Study of N.T. Teaching on Coping with an Enemy,” in Mennonite Quarterly Review, 1963, pp. 147–171; M. J. Lagrange, La Morale de l’Evangile, Paris, 1931 (the last chapter); idem, “L’Amour de Dieu, loi suprême de la morale de l’Evangile,” in VSpir, Supplément, vol. 26, 1931, pp. 1–16; M. Landfester, “Philos”; M. Lattke, Einheit im Wort: Die spezifische Bedeutung von “agapē,” “agapan” und “filein” im Johannes-Evangelium, Munich, 1975; M. M. Laurent, Réalisme et richesse de l’amour chrétien: Essai sur Eros et Agapè, Issy-les-Moulineaux, 1962; N. Lazure, Les Valeurs morales de la théologie johannique, Paris, 1965, pp. 207–250; E. H. van Leeuwen, “Ἀγαπητοί,” in Theologische Studien, 1903, pp. 139–151; S. Légasse, “L’étendue de l’amour interhumain d’après le Nouveau Testament: Limites et promesses,” in RTL, 1977, pp. 137–159; O. Linton, “S. Matthew V, 43,” in ST, 1964, pp. 66–79; D. Muñoz Lion, “La Nouveauté du commandement de l’amour dans les écrits de S. Jean,” in La etica biblica (vol. 29, Semana biblica española), Madrid, 1969, pp. 193–231; N. M. Loss, “Amore d’amicizia nel Nuovo Testamento,” in Salesianum, 1977, pp. 3–55; J. B. Lotz, Die Stufen der Liebe: Eros, Philia, Agapè, Frankfurt, 1971; D. Lührmann, “Liebet eure Feinde (Lk. VI, 27–36; Mt. V, 39–48),” in ZTK, 1972, pp. 412–438; S. Lyonnet, La carità pienezza della lege, secondo san Paulo, 2 d ed., Rome, 1971; F. Maas, “Die Selbstliebe nach Leviticus XIX, 18,” in Festschrift F. Baumgärtel, Erlangen, 1959, pp. 109–113; D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” in CBQ, 1965, pp. 144–147; T. W. Manson, On Paul and John, London, 1963, pp. 104–127; H. Montefiore, “Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself,” in NovT, 1962, pp. 157–170; W. L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” in CBQ, 1963, pp. 77–87; J. Moss, “I Cor. XIII, 13,” in ExpT, vol. 73, 1962, p. 253; D. Müller, “Das frühchristliche Verständnis der Liebe,” in Festschrift A. Alt, Leipzig, 1953–1954, vol. 3, pp. 131–137; P. L. Naumann, “The Presence of Love in John’s Gospel,” in Worship, 1965, pp. 363–371; K. Niederwimmer, “Erkennen und Lieben: Gedanken zum Verhältnis von Gnosis und Agape im ersten Korintherbrief,” in KD, 1965, pp. 75–102; A. Nissen, Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum, Tübingen, 1974; M. Oesterreicher, The Bridge: A Yearbook of Judaeo-Christian Studies IV, New York, 1962; C. Oggioni, La dottrina della carità nel IV Vangelo e nella Ia Lettera di Giovanni, Milan, 1953; G. Outha, Agapè: An Ethical Analysis, New Haven-London, 1972; A. Penna, Amore nella Biblia, Brescia, 1972; C. Perini, “Amicizia e carità fraterna nella vita della Chiesa,” in DivThom, 1970, pp. 369–407; G. Quispel, “Love Thy Brother,” in Ancient Society, Louvain, vol. 1, pp. 83–93; L. Ramlot, “Le Nouveau Commandement de la nouvelle alliance ou Alliance et commandement,” in Lumière et vie, vol. 44, 1959, pp. 9–36; J. W. Rausch, Agape and Amicitia: A Comparison Between St. Paul and St. Thomas, Rome, 1958; C. C. Richardson, “Love: Greek and Christian,” in JR, 1943, pp. 173–185; K. Romaniuk, L’Amour du Père et du Fils dans la sotériologie de saint Paul, Rome, 1961; G. Rotureau, Amour de Dieu: Amour des hommes, Tournai, 1958 (popularization); G. Schille, “Die Liebe Gottes in Christus: Beobachtungen zu Rm. VIII, 31–39,” in ZNW, 1968, pp. 230–244; H. Schlier, Die Zeit der Kirche, Freiburg, 1956, pp. 186–193; idem, “Die Bruderliebe nach dem Evangelium und den Briefen des Johannes,” in Mélanges Rigaux, pp. 235–245; G. Schneider, “Die Neuheit der christlichen Nächstenliebe,” in TTZ, 1973, pp. 257–275; O.J.F. Seitz, “Love Your Enemies,” in NTS, vol. 16, 1969, pp. 39–54; W. W. Sikes, “A Note on Agapē in Johannine Literature,” in Shane Quart., vol. 16, 1955, pp. 139–143; B. Snell, H. J. Mette, Lexikon, col. 45–46 (with the report of B. Marzullo, in Philologus, 1957, p. 205); M. Spanneut, “L’Amour, de l’hellénisme au christianisme,” in Mélanges de science religieuse, 1964, pp. 5–19; C. Spicq, “Le Verbe ἀγαπάω et ses dérivés dans le grec classique,” in RB, 1953, pp. 372–397; idem, “Die Liebe als Gestaltungsprinzip der Moral in den synoptischen Evangelien,” in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, 1954, pp. 394–410; idem, “Le Lexique de l’amour dans les papyrus et dans quelques inscriptions de l’époque hellénistique,” in Mnemosyne, 1955, pp. 25–33; idem, “Notes d’exégèse johannique: la charité est amour manifeste,” in RB, 1958, pp. 358–370; idem, Agapè; idem, “La Justification du charitable (I Jo. III, 19–21),” in Studia Biblica et Orientalia, Rome, 1959, vol. 2, pp. 347–359; idem, “Les Composantes de la notion d’agapè dans le Nouveau Testament,” in Sacra Pagina, Paris-Gembloux, 1959, vol. 2, pp. 440–455; idem, Charité et liberté; idem, Théologie morale, vol. 2, pp. 481–566; D. M. Stanley, “ ‘God So Loved the World,’ ” in Worship, 1957, pp. 16–23; K. Stendahl, “Hate, Non-retaliation, and Love,” in HTR, 1962, pp. 343–355; J. B. Stern, “Jesus’ Citation of Dt. VI, 5 and Lv. XIX, 18 in the Light of Jewish Tradition,” in CBQ, 1966, pp. 312–316; T. Stramare, “La carità secondo S. Giovanni,” in Tabor, 1965, pp. 47–58; D. W. Thomas, “The Root אהב ‘Love’ in Hebrew,” in ZAW, 1939, pp. 57–64; G. Torralba, “La Caridad en S. Pablo,” in EstBib, 1965, pp. 295–318; J. G. Trapiello, “El amor de Dios en los escritos de S. Juan,” in Verdad y vida, 1963, pp. 257–279; W. C. van Unnik, “Die Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lukas, VI, 32–35,” in Sparsa Collecta, Leiden, 1973, vol. 1, pp. 111–128; F. Urtiz de Urtaran, “Esperanza y caridad en el N. T.,” in Scriptorium Victorense (Vitoria), 1954, vol. 1, pp. 1–50; A. G. Vella, “Agapē in I Corinthians XIII,” in Melita Theologica, vol. 18, 1966, pp. 22–31, 57–66; vol. 19, 1967, pp. 44–54; R. Völkl, Die Selbstliebe in der heiligen Schrift und bei Thomas von Aquin, Munich, 1956; idem, Botschaft und Gebot der Liebe nach der Bibel, Freiburg, 1964; V. Warnach, “Liebe,” in J. B. Bauer, Bibeltheologisches Wörterbuch, Grass-Vienna, 1959, pp. 502–542; C. Wiéner, Recherches sur l’amour pour Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament: Etude d’une racine, Paris, 1957; S. K. Wuest, “Four Greek Words for Love,” in BibSac, 1959, pp. 241–248.

Spicq, C., & Ernest, J. D. (1994). Vol. 1: Theological lexicon of the New Testament (8–22). Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson.

How does the TLNT match up against the NIDNTT?

http://www.logos.com/product/5463/new-international-dictionary-of-new-testament-theology

Joshua Garcia said:

How does the TLNT match up against the NIDNTT?

http://www.logos.com/product/5463/new-international-dictionary-of-new-testament-theology

Not sure, either, though you could compare NIDNTT with the excerpts posted here.

For $50 Spicq should be a no-brainer for those who don't have it.